Cynnane/Cleopatra - Who got the better deal?

[smittysmitty]

Cynnane, daughter of Audata and Philip II marries her cousin Amyntas son of Perdiccas III and rightful heir to the Argead throne.Cleopatra, daughter of Olympias and Phillip II marries her uncle Alexander King of the Molossians. Sounds to me, assuming their was some contesting that existed amongst the princes's, that Cynnane drew the better straw. Her potental off spring would have been blue blood through and through, where as Cleopatras unfortunately would not.I wonder what Philips thoughts/plans were when he married of his girls.Why did he choose Cynnane and not Cleopatra to provide further Argead heirs? Interested to hear your responses.
cheers!

[ruthaki]

Cynnane's mother was from Illyria. And I believe she was much older than Cleopatra whose mother was from Epirus. At the time Philip married off Cleopatra to her Epirote uncle I think he was thinking of consolidating the kingdoms (in his favour).

[marcus]

Hi Ruth,Do we know that Cynnane was much older than Cleopatra? It's very probable that Philip married Audata before he married Olympias, but it doesn't necessarily follow that her daughter was born before Cleopatra. (Unless we have any firm dates that I'm not aware of.)After all, Amyntas was only a baby, or a very young child, when Philip came to the throne, so was only 3-5 years older than Alexander; and Cynnane could only have been 3-4 years older than Alexander, at the most.Also, do we know when Cynnane married Amyntas? All the bestMarcus

[susan]

Beth Carney thinks that Cynnane was born well after 358 or 357 - also that she married Amyntas around 338-336. The speculation is that the marriage was partly a warning to Alexander - Amyntas was being groomed as an alternative heir if Alexander became too troublesome to Philip.Susan

[marcus]

That would make a lot of sense to me.I would also imagine Cynnane to have been born after Alexander because I would have expected Philip to have used her as a marriage tool earlier - if she married Amyntas in, say 338, then she was a bit of an old spinster if she was born before 358 and therefore already over 20! More likely she was born in around 352-354.All the bestMarcus

[smittysmitty]

I tend to believe Carney is on the right track, that Philip perhaps was not averse to the idea of Argeads breeding, even if not by him.Interesting that Philip had no problem what so ever with Amyntas being a threat, indeed even gave his daughter in marriage to him. , yet one of the first Things ATG did on succeeding to the throne was to eliminate Amyntas. Why was he a threat to him and not to Philip, after all he (ATG) had already been proclaimed king.just my thoughts.cheers!

[marcus]

Hi Smitty,I think it's largely to do with age and experience. Amyntas was only a baby (or a very young boy) when Philip became regent, and he took over the crown without any opposition - a 20-year-old, proven warrior is a better king than a toddler. The subsequent years showed Philip to be incredibly successful, and so there was little chance that Amyntas would ever supplant him. Therefore he was no threat - and was even of some use to Philip, perhaps.On the other hand, Alexander was largely unproven (depending on how much weight you put on his command at Chaironea). Amyntas was a young man, and was almost certainly battle-proven too. Therefore, despite the fact that Alexander had been proclaimed king, Amyntas was a threat - not least because there could be those who accused Alexander of being a usurper, that Amyntas had a better claim to the throne than he.All the bestMarcus

[smittysmitty]

Marcus,entirely agree with you!

[ruthaki]

Cynnane's daughter Adeia (later Eurydike) was at least 14 when she came down to Syria to marry Arridaios. So how old would Cynnane have been when she gave birth to her?

[marcus]

Good man! :-)M

[susan]

Adea was probably born in the period 338-335 - no later, as Amyntas, her father, had died by then. Cynnane would have been in her mid-late teens at Adea's birth - a normal age for a first child then.Susan

[marcus]

I've always assumed that Amyntas was killed very soon after Alexander assumed the throne (although the chronology of the killings is a bit vague) - of all those exterminated, Amyntas is the one who almost certainly was dispatched almost at once. So if Philip was killed in the Autumn of 336, Cynnane's daughter could have been born no later than 9 months after (I suppose) an hour or two (or less) before Amyntas was killed :-)Marcus

[smittysmitty]

Hi all,
sort of got side tracked from the original question,
why did Phiip marry Cleopatra to Alexander of Epirus was what I really wanted to know?1. was it because their were already family ties and for some reason unbeknown to me, at this time was a logical choise?2. was it was a case of timing, Cleopatra was the only one of age and disposition available to marry Alexander? 3. was it Philip wanted to exclude any further Mollosian blood from the Argead Court?or I guess any other reasons I can't think of, like to hear your thoughts.
Cheers!

[susan]

Alexander of Epirus was Olympias' brother - so when Olympias returned to Epirus and her brother, after the arguments with Philip & his new marriage, Philip had to do something to neutralise any possible threat from Alexander of Epirus; and so he married him to Cleopatra. In some ways it may have been a suitable counter to Olympias - I suppose that Cleopatra was left behind at Pella when her mother & brother went - she was Philip's daughter but also Olympias' daughter, and she might have had questionable loyalty in future succession battles. Marrying her to her uncle would go a long way to neutralise her power as a dynastic pawn. I don't expect that Olympias was best pleased about it; it tended to isolate her power-base. Now, if Cleopatra had married Amyntas or any of the other possible claimants, that would have been a different matter.Susan

[smittysmitty]

Hi Susan,
I quite agree with your second point,(isolation of power base) and perhaps I was a little hesitant to come out and say so, but was just curious what other alternative reasons there may be. I have a problem, once I get a mind set, its hard to budge me LoL. The point of neutralizing any hostility between Olympias/Alexander(her brother), and the Molossians has never realy made much sence to me,even though its commonly suggested by historians, as well as people on this forum :)Why would we even imagine there may be a threat?, what threat would the Molossians pose to Philip and the Makedones, he /they had subdued far superior numbers and quality armies than the Epirots, so why the big deal? The other point I guess,. its fairly well established, that Alexander the Epirot, was/had been a subserviant to Philip all along and due to Philips action granted the kingdom of Molossos. The Molossians had been subserviant long before Alexander reached the throne. Again, I pose the question, what was the threat?That Olympias was capable of rousing the Molossians to arms, (which I doubt very much), so what! No, I'm inclined to believe their was a purposeful attempt (forein policy) to reduce/isolate the Molossian house's involvment with the Argeads. But as I said earlier, thats just my mind set at the moment, but I'm quite open to hear other theories :)cheers!